Should FIFA raise the minimum stadium capacities for the World Cup?

[mfw13]

Last year at Germany 2006, many fans were quite unhappy about the ticket shortages caused by the relatively small stadia.

In my opinion, FIFA should raise the minimum seating requirement from 40,000 to 50,000 to alleviate potential ticket shortages, as well as requiring that at least half the stadia in any given host country have capacities greater than 60,000.

[Hansadyret]

I dont think they should raise minimum capacities. If they do this even fewer countries would be able to host it. The stadiums should be used after the world cup to host regular league games and half empty stadiums does not look good. The demand for world cup tickets will not be as high as it was in Germany every time. Germany is in the middle of Europe wich means short distances for many supporters. I think the demand for tickets will not be as high in South Africa and Brazil as it was last summer.

[JLSA]

I dont think they should raise minimum capacities. If they do this even fewer countries would be able to host it.

I suggest that's the intention of the suggestion - with the "fewer" aiming to be "one".

One may ask whether there is a difference between not being able to see World Cup games because you can't afford to travel across oceans and not being able to see World Cup games because you are unlucky to miss out of tickets.

J

[gold.field]

Last year at Germany 2006, many fans were quite unhappy about the ticket shortages caused by the relatively small stadia.

In my opinion, FIFA should raise the minimum seating requirement from 40,000 to 50,000 to alleviate potential ticket shortages, as well as requiring that at least half the stadia in any given host country have capacities greater than 60,000.

The problem isn't so much that stadiums can hold 50000 or 60000 people. It's the obscene amount of tickets sponsors and officials get, which leaves normal fans fighting for fewer tickets. Fortunately you can have a blast at public viewings like the ones in Seoul/Berlin (and basicly any other town in Germany 2006), too. Unless the WC is held in the USA, of course ;).

Furthermore, if you didn't care which game you were watching, it would have been quite easy to get your hands on tickets for e.g. Iran-Angola.

[Hazzathewazza]

Most of the stadiums for Euro 2008 are only 30,000.
I dont think that is enough.

[RichardL]

Most of the stadiums for Euro 2008 are only 30,000.
I dont think that is enough.it's not, but it allows the tournaments to be spread around. Had UEFA required 40,000+ stadiums then Switzerland/Austria would not have hosted, nor would Portugal have done last time, or Belgium/Holland before that. And Poland/Ukraine wouldn't have got the next one.

Large capacities are nice, but if 1 million people apply for a match then having an extra 10,000 seats doesn't improve the odds greatly anyway.

I applied for ticket for Euro 2008 but didn't get any. What annoyed me was the unrestricted application process, not the smaller capacities.

At the world cup the biggest annoyance was the amount of tickets given to sponsors.

[mfw13]

The obscene amounts of tickets being given to sponsors are certainly part of the problem. But stadium size is nevertheless a huge issue, simply because as air travel becomes easier and less expensive, more and more people want to go to the World Cup. Last year at this time, these boards were full of people griping and moaning about not being able to get tickets for even a match or two at Germany 2006. So you can't tell me that having another 10,000-20,000 seats available for each match would not have been a good thing.

If Brazil gets the 2014 World Cup, as is likely, FIFA should require 50,000 seat minimum stadia for all matches. Since Brazil will be building new stadia from scratch in almost all cases, they should have no trouble building slightly bigger new stadia (nor keeping them filled once the WC is over).

[BocaFan]

The obscene amounts of tickets being given to sponsors are certainly part of the problem. But stadium size is nevertheless a huge issue, simply because as air travel becomes easier and less expensive, more and more people want to go to the World Cup. Last year at this time, these boards were full of people griping and moaning about not being able to get tickets for even a match or two at Germany 2006. So you can't tell me that having another 10,000-20,000 seats available for each match would not have been a good thing.


Yes, but that doesn't come without both a short-term cost (expanding existing stadiums) and a long-term cost (big empty stadia with no atmosphere once World Cup is over).

The bitching and moaning you refer to can be greatly decreased with a better ticket allocation system in place.

You also seem to have trouble understanding that getting into the stadium to see a match live is NOT the be-all and end-all for fans. Especially since those extra 10 to 20 thousand seats we are talking about will be the seats farthest away from the action. Its just as fun to watch a match in something like the "fan mile" in Berlin last year than up in the nose-bleed sections of the stadium, IMO

[M]

FIFA did raise the bar between '98 and '02 (35k -> 40k min iirc). I can see it raising the bar again to 45k in the near future, and it's also worth pointing out that back in '70, Mexico had a t least one stadium with a capacity less than 20k! I hope that's it though as there is an obvious tradeoff between capacity requirements and available hosts. It would be a huge mistake to limit possible hosts too much.

[Reignking]

Last year at Germany 2006, many fans were quite unhappy about the ticket shortages caused by the relatively small stadia.

In my opinion, FIFA should raise the minimum seating requirement from 40,000 to 50,000 to alleviate potential ticket shortages, as well as requiring that at least half the stadia in any given host country have capacities greater than 60,000.

France would be out, then. I believe they have two that are greater than 50k (Marseille, Stade de France).

[Midorit]

France would be out, then. I believe they have two that are greater than 50k (Marseille, Stade de France).

That's fine by him;)

[M]

That's fine by him;)

Lol.

France would actually have to do some work to host even with today's standards, as a number of their WC '98 stadia have a capacity under the current minimum of 40k.

[mfw13]

No. That wouldn't be fine by me. I had a great time at France 98, but tickets for "neutral" matches were really hard to come by. Whereas I was able to see eight first-round matches in Korea, including Brazil-Costa Rica and France-Denmark, at France 98 the only two non-USA matches I was able to get tickets to were Nigeria-Bulgaria and Chile-Cameroon (just allowed me more time for sightseeing).

That's why I think that its worth considering the idea of having joint hosts for the next World Cup held in conintental Europe, since its so easy to get around by train and there are so many terrific stadia. Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums (Millenium, Old Trafford, Emirates, Wembley, St. James Park, the new Anfield, Ibrox, Hampden Park, Celtic Park). Put together a joint UK/Holland/Paris World Cup, and you're up to eleven 50,000+ stadia, with Paris, London, and Amsterdam all being a 2-3 hour train ride from each other.

[Midorit]

That's why I think that its worth considering the idea of having joint hosts for the next World Cup held in conintental Europe, since its so easy to get around by train and there are so many terrific stadia. Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums (Millenium, Old Trafford, Emirates, Wembley, St. James Park, the new Anfield, Ibrox, Hampden Park, Celtic Park). Put together a joint UK/Holland/Paris World Cup, and you're up to eleven 50,000+ stadia, with Paris, London, and Amsterdam all being a 2-3 hour train ride from each other.

To put it bluntly,the world does not revolve around your wet dream.

[mofo4life]

Last year at Germany 2006, many fans were quite unhappy about the ticket shortages caused by the relatively small stadia.

In my opinion, FIFA should raise the minimum seating requirement from 40,000 to 50,000 to alleviate potential ticket shortages, as well as requiring that at least half the stadia in any given host country have capacities greater than 60,000.


The average attendance 4 the 2006 WC was 52000.;)

[RichardL]

That's why I think that its worth considering the idea of having joint hosts for the next World Cup held in conintental Europe, since its so easy to get around by train and there are so many terrific stadia. Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums (Millenium, Old Trafford, Emirates, Wembley, St. James Park, the new Anfield, Ibrox, Hampden Park, Celtic Park). Put together a joint UK/Holland/Paris World Cup, and you're up to eleven 50,000+ stadia, with Paris, London, and Amsterdam all being a 2-3 hour train ride from each other.
London - Amsterdam is 6 hours, not 2-3.

Buying tickets in Korea/Japan was far easier because the locals didn't buy as many tickets. You could log onto the FIFA site and take your pick from loads of games.

Almost all of the games in Germany, however, were massively oversubscribed because the game is rather more popular in Germany than it is in Japan/Korea. An extra 10,000 spaces wouldn't have increased people's odds that greatly except for the lesser matches. Same for games in France in 1998.

In Germany, the people who were happy to go along and watch South Korea v Togo and such games generally got a few tickets (I got 4 of 6 such games, which didn't seem out of the ordinary). Those who wanted to see Brazil or England typically failed, as there were half a million other people also wanting to see those games.

The draw process also favoured those who were willing to see any match as the initial ballot was "blind". By the time the draw was made a large number of the tickets had already been allocated. Those waiting until after then were already limiting their chances.

[Reignking]

Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums

You might want to double-check Spain...

[BocaFan]

That's why I think that its worth considering the idea of having joint hosts for the next World Cup held in conintental Europe, since its so easy to get around by train and there are so many terrific stadia. Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums (Millenium, Old Trafford, Emirates, Wembley, St. James Park, the new Anfield, Ibrox, Hampden Park, Celtic Park). Put together a joint UK/Holland/Paris World Cup, and you're up to eleven 50,000+ stadia, with Paris, London, and Amsterdam all being a 2-3 hour train ride from each other.

Your continental Europe World Cup idea will totally have the opposite effect that you want it to have. It would actually be tougher to get a ticket in a UK-Holland-France world cup than it was to get tickets in Germany 2006. Each of the 3 hosts will host 3 times fewer matches than if they were the lone hosts, thereby increasing demand 3-fold among local residents. Plus there would be more travelling fans too, totally offsetting the benefits of a slightly larger stadium, and then some.

You also overestimate the ease of travelling through European countries that are overcrowded with travevilling football fans. Even when the Euros were held in Portugal, I regretted getting tickets for matches all over the country. Overcrowded trains, impossible to find hotel rooms in the smaller cities, etc.
I'm not making that mistake again. World Cup 2006 - I never left Berlin. Euro 2008 - I'm planting myself in Vienna. One city per tournament for me from now on (unless its the USA in which case I just won't bother at all cuz it'll suck like in 1994)

[Schwalker]

No. That wouldn't be fine by me. I had a great time at France 98, but tickets for "neutral" matches were really hard to come by. Whereas I was able to see eight first-round matches in Korea, including Brazil-Costa Rica and France-Denmark, at France 98 the only two non-USA matches I was able to get tickets to were Nigeria-Bulgaria and Chile-Cameroon (just allowed me more time for sightseeing).

That's why I think that its worth considering the idea of having joint hosts for the next World Cup held in conintental Europe, since its so easy to get around by train and there are so many terrific stadia. Otherwise, right now only the UK has enough 50,000+ stadiums (Millenium, Old Trafford, Emirates, Wembley, St. James Park, the new Anfield, Ibrox, Hampden Park, Celtic Park). Put together a joint UK/Holland/Paris World Cup, and you're up to eleven 50,000+ stadia, with Paris, London, and Amsterdam all being a 2-3 hour train ride from each other.

You will not be pleased to know that FIFA after the S-Korea/Japan World Cup but a "NEVERMORE" clause in their rules...Apparently it was a nightmare for them.

The WC will have one single host until that one is removed..:cool:

[mfw13]

...and they could have sold 60,000-70,000 tickets for most matches had the stadia been bigger.

USA 94 averaged 68,000 per match....nobody's come close since (France 98 and Korea/Japan both averaged about 42,000).